Literature review of complementary and alternative therapies: using text mining and analysis of trends in nursing research

Purpose This study aimed to review the literature on complementary and alternative therapies, utilizing text mining and trend analysis in nursing research. As CAM becomes increasingly prevalent in healthcare settings, a comprehensive understanding of the current research landscape is essential to guide evidence-based practice, inform clinical decision-making, and ultimately enhance patient outcomes. Method This study aimed to identify CAM-related literature published from 2018 to 2023. Using the search terms 'complementary therap*', 'complementary medicine', 'alternative therap*', and 'alternative medicine', we performed a comprehensive search in eight databases, including EMBASE, Cochrane Central, PubMed Central, Korea Education and Research Information Service (RISS), Web of Science, KMbase, KISS, and CINAHL. From the text network and topic modeling analysis of 66,490 documents, 15 topics were identified. These topics were classified into two nursing-related topics through an academic classification process involving three doctors with doctoral degrees, three nurses, and three pharmacists. Based on the classified topics, research trends were comparatively analyzed by re-searching the database for 12 nursing and 22 non-nursing literature. Result This study found that in nursing literature, yoga is used to improve mental symptoms such as stress and anxiety. In non-nursing literature, most of the experimental studies on complementary and alternative therapies were conducted in a randomized manner, confirming that a variety of physiological and objective indicators were used. Additionally, it was discovered that there were differences in the diversity of research subjects and research design methods for the same intervention method. Therefore, future research should focus on broadening the scope of subjects and measurement tools in nursing studies. Additionally, such studies should be conducted with randomization and generalizability in the experimental design in mind. Conclusion This study employed text network analysis and text mining to identify domestic and international CAM research trends. Our novel approach combined big data-derived keywords with a systematic classification method, proposing a new methodological strategy for trend analysis. Future nursing research should focus on broadening the scope of subjects, diversifying measurement tools, and emphasizing randomization and generalizability in experimental designs. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12912-024-02172-9.


Information sources
6 Specify all databases, registers, websites, organisations, reference lists and other sources searched or consulted to identify studies.Specify the date when each source was last searched or consulted.

P. 2-4
Search strategy 7 Present the full search strategies for all databases, registers and websites, including any filters and limits used.

P. 3
Selection process 8 Specify the methods used to decide whether a study met the inclusion criteria of the review, including how many reviewers screened each record and each report retrieved, whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

Data collection process
9 Specify the methods used to collect data from reports, including how many reviewers collected data from each report, whether they worked independently, any processes for obtaining or confirming data from study investigators, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.
P.3-4, Data items 10a List and define all outcomes for which data were sought.Specify whether all results that were compatible with each outcome domain in each study were sought (e.g. for all measures, time points, analyses), and if not, the methods used to decide which results to collect.

P. 3-4
10b List and define all other variables for which data were sought (e.g.participant and intervention characteristics, funding sources).Describe any assumptions made about any missing or unclear information.

P.3-4
Study risk of bias assessment 11 Specify the methods used to assess risk of bias in the included studies, including details of the tool(s) used, how many reviewers assessed each study and whether they worked independently, and if applicable, details of automation tools used in the process.

P.3-5
Effect measures 12 Specify for each outcome the effect measure(s) (e.g.risk ratio, mean difference) used in the synthesis or presentation of results.P. 5-7

Synthesis methods
13a Describe the processes used to decide which studies were eligible for each synthesis (e.g.tabulating the study intervention characteristics and comparing against the planned groups for each synthesis (item #5)).

P.3-5
13b Describe any methods required to prepare the data for presentation or synthesis, such as handling of missing summary statistics, or data conversions.

P. 3-5
13c Describe any methods used to tabulate or visually display results of individual studies and syntheses.P. 5-7 13d Describe any methods used to synthesize results and provide a rationale for the choice(s).If meta-analysis was performed, describe the model(s), method(s) to identify the presence and extent of statistical heterogeneity, and software package(s) used.

NA
13e Describe any methods used to explore possible causes of heterogeneity among study results (e.g.subgroup analysis, meta-regression).NA 13f Describe any sensitivity analyses conducted to assess robustness of the synthesized results.NA

Reporting bias assessment
14 Describe any methods used to assess risk of bias due to missing results in a synthesis (arising from reporting biases).NA Certainty 15 Describe any methods used to assess certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for an outcome.NA

Item # Checklist item
Location where item is reported assessment

Study selection
16a Describe the results of the search and selection process, from the number of records identified in the search to the number of studies included in the review, ideally using a flow diagram.

NA
16b Cite studies that might appear to meet the inclusion criteria, but which were excluded, and explain why they were excluded.P. 3-4

Study characteristics
17 Cite each included study and present its characteristics.P. 5-10

Risk of bias in studies
18 Present assessments of risk of bias for each included study.NA

Results of individual studies
19 For all outcomes, present, for each study: (a) summary statistics for each group (where appropriate) and (b) an effect estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval), ideally using structured tables or plots.

Results of syntheses 20a
For each synthesis, briefly summarise the characteristics and risk of bias among contributing studies.NA 20b Present results of all statistical syntheses conducted.If meta-analysis was done, present for each the summary estimate and its precision (e.g.confidence/credible interval) and measures of statistical heterogeneity.If comparing groups, describe the direction of the effect.For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

NA20c
Present results of all investigations of possible causes of heterogeneity among study results.NA 20d Present results of all sensitivity analyses conducted to assess the robustness of the synthesized results.NA Reporting biases 21 Present assessments of risk of bias due to missing results (arising from reporting biases) for each synthesis assessed.NA Certainty of evidence 22 Present assessments of certainty (or confidence) in the body of evidence for each outcome assessed.P. 5-10 DISCUSSION Discussion 23a Provide a general interpretation of the results in the context of other evidence.P. 5-10 23b Discuss any limitations of the evidence included in the review.P. 10 23c Discuss any limitations of the review processes used.P. 1023d Discuss implications of the results for practice, policy, and future research.information for the review, including register name and registration number, or state that the review was not registered.NA 24b Indicate where the review protocol can be accessed, or state that a protocol was not prepared.NA 24c Describe and explain any amendments to information provided at registration or in the protocol.NA Support 25 Describe sources of financial or non-financial support for the review, and the role of the funders or sponsors in the review.which of the following are publicly available and where they can be found: template data collection forms; data extracted from included studies; data used for all analyses; analytic code; any other materials used in the review.P. 3-5From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al.The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews.BMJ 2021;372:n71.doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71